Search form

Fluoridation and Dementia

Since 1962, on the recommendation of the United States Public Health Service, fluoride has been used in the public drinking water supplied to about 2 out of 3 Americans. The decision to add fluoride to drinking water is made locally. The types of fluoride include fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride.

Studies have consistently shown positive outcomes for fluoridation in the health of teeth of children, adults and older adults — although these studies have been contested. The bigger contention is whether we need to indiscriminately fluoridate our teeth by ingestion of fluoride through our water supply without being able to control the level of exposure, the varying sensitivity of the recipient, and its accumulation in the body.

Fluoride is also ingested from fruit juices, sodas, popular breakfast cereals, lettuce and raisins and anything grown with pesticides since fluoridation is an effective killer of pests.

However beneficial the fluoridation is to the health of teeth, it does not tell us the whole story, especially on the overall health of older adults. Since 25 percent of adults 60 years old and older no longer have their natural teeth, the arguments for the benefit of fluoridation is somewhat toothless.

Sodium fluoride is a bone anabolic drug. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60 percent of the fluoride ingested each day. The rest accumulates in the body, largely in bones and pineal gland. The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime and we are more likely to see large concentrations in older adults. But, the growth in bone quantity might be detrimental.

Christa Danielson and her colleagues compared the incidence of hip fractures in patients 65 years of age or older in three communities where two were without water fluoridated to 1 ppm. Surprisingly, they found a small but significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to fluoridation. Other studies have found similar results. Suggesting that low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly and there seems to be a dose relationship with the higher the concentration of fluoride, the higher the risk of hip fractures. It seems that fluoride may increase bone quantity—osteofluorosis, osteosclerosis—but it might also decrease bone quality and bone strength.

Just as troubling for older adults, is the evidence that Patočka Strunecká and her colleagues from Charles University in the Czech Republic exposed. They found that long-term action of aluminofluoride complexes may represent a serious and powerful risk factor for the development of Alzheimer’s disease. In another study, rats fed for one year with 1-5 ppm fluoride in their water — the same level used in fluoridation programs—using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, resulted in the formation of beta-amyloid deposits—associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Since the US Environmental Protection Agency lists fluoride as having “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity,” we expect to see other negative outcomes of fluoridation. Fluoridation is one area that demand better clinical trials with older adults. Perhaps by eliminating fluoridation we can put some teeth into laws protecting the health of older adults.

Wow! Psychology Today has certainly taken a nosedive in the quality of its articles since I was an undergraduate psychology major. This biased, poorly researched piece of antifluoridationist propaganda that it has chosen to publish is a disgrace on this once proud publication. At least require a modicum of proper research to be done, for your own reputation, if nothing else.

Dr. Slott, I'm a D.D.S. as well, and lets relax. Just think how much more money we will all make if social workers like the author have their way with cherry picked studies and public hysteria? I have a few family who refuse all forms of fluoride, and sometimes it seems more like child abuse, the kids are a mess.

You realize that not a single study has ever shown that amalgam fillings have any negative health effects? The guy who pushed their "toxic" effect the hardest ended up going to jail for fraud. Its an early version of the anti-vaccine craze. I personally still have amalgam fillings. They are FAR superior to composite ones in all ways except for aesthetics.

Its hilarious too how conspiracy types like to think that somehow this is a conspiracy by the dentists on fluoride or amalgams. Getting rid of fluoride alone would make us stinking rich. I had a mother yesterday who was upset and shocked that her daughter had her very first tiny cavity ever at age 17. Get rid of fluoride and the shock would be a visit where you didn't have new ones.

If anything the problem now is with everyone drinking bottled water, kids are not getting enough fluoride at the proper time. Ah well your loss is my gain.

Individuals should be the ones deciding what they put in their bodies. Not the federal or local government, not Dr. Sloth DDS, or other dentists.

When I was a kid the dentist would give us a sucker when we were done with our visits. Cavities are easily preventable by cutting out soda, juice, sugar, and carbs. Supplementing with FERMENTED COD LIVER OIL and high vitamin butter oil, practicing oil pulling, using xylithol, vitamin D, and having a diet rich in calcium, magnesium, phosphate, hydroxide from water, and adenosine diphosphatase prevent and heal cavities.

Some dentists do not recommend these practices and other do. Be picky with the dentist you choose. There are many that are against fluoride and mercury used in amalgam fillings. Biological dentists tend to be anti mercury and fluoride free. Anyone that believes amalgam(mercury) fillings are 100% safe and a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industry is the same as calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride is a quack or may have inhaled a bit too much mercury and fluoride vapor. There are many dentists you can find that are on the leading edge of information and do not recommend these techniques.

If studies were released tomorrow showing fluoride increased cancer rates by 20% the guard dogs would be sent out to discredit the study to protect the policy that has been the status quo. The study wouldn't be taken into consideration because it conflicts with the official stance of organizations which endorse and recommend the practice. Endorsement and science are different.

There is absolutely no health agency in fluoridated communities monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are taken of blood, urine, bone, hair, or nails of the general population, people suffering diseases possibly linked to fluoride, or from the sensitive subpopulation easily affected by toxicity. If it's not being looked for or not seen, then it must not exist.

So, instead of trusting respected science and healthcare, readers should instead trust an anonymous commenter on a blog who obviously has no healthcare education, training, or knowledge, and who posts a litany of anecdotes and unsubstantiated claims with not one shred of valid evidence to support them?

Uh....yeah. I'm fine with the ability of intelligent readers to see the lunacy of that.

Thank you for an excellent comment Anonymous. It is comforting to read such an honest and clear comment on artificial water fluoridation. I am curious to know what drives Steven Slott so obsessively to disrespect the individual's right to not be medicated without informed consent, dose control and regulation. Even worse to mass medicate with an industrial grade chemical which is a toxic waste product with no toxicology studies even though legally required and the 100% dissociation story that Steven tells is not supported by science.

"Dissociation disproved
Interesting. So the National Toxicology Program, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services says the assumption that fluoridation chemicals disassociate into free fluoride ions is not supported by experimental evidence. This is good to remember when the fluoridationists claim that fluoride, is fluoride is fluoride. They are operating on belief rather than scientific fact.
Nomination Summary for Fluorosilicates (N99030) - NTP http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/noms/search/summary/nm-n99030.html#2901567328850328

Rationale: Primary agents used to fluoridate public drinking water systems; lack of toxicity information; assumed complete dissociation to free fluoride under normal conditions of use not supported by science.
ntp.niehs.nih.gov "

Do you honestly not understand the difference between "rationale" and "conclusions"? The quote you provide is simply the rationale, or reason, that a review was requested. Some uninformed antifluoridationists, probably Connett or some of his disciples, petitioned DHHS Toxicology to perform a review of hexafluorosilic acid due to the antifluoridationists' opinion that HFA has "lack of toxicity information; assumed complete dissociation to free fluoride under normal conditions of use not supported by science." This was the erroneous opinion of the petitioners, not of DHHS.

After a review of the literature in regard to HFA, DHHS Toxicology stated the following conclusion on pages 7 and 8 of this report which you cited but obviously did not read:

"In 1992, 5876 U.S. public water suppliers were using fluorosilicic acid and 1635 utilities were using its sodium salt for water fluoridation, serving greater than 80 and 36 million persons, respectively (Urbansky and Schock, 2000). Currently, silicofluorides are used in over 9200 U.S. water treatment systems, serving over 120 million individuals (CSDS, 2001). Exposure via drinking water is, however, expected to be minimal, since at concentrations used in water fluoridation and at the normal pH of drinking water, both compounds hydrolyze almost completely (see Section 2.2) (Urbansky and Schock). At equilibrium, the hexafluorosilicate remaining in drinking water is estimated to be

I agree with "Anonymous". Those who fear dental amalgam foolishly do so in the absence of any valid evidence, whatsoever, to justify this fear. Even more foolish are those who have their amalgams replaced with far less durable material which will require far more frequent replacement, due solely to their irrational fear of amalgam.

Steven Slott seems to have to disparage anyone who disagrees with his belie that he has the right to tell them that they must take the medicine he prescribes - like artificial water fluoridation/mass medication to treat dental decay.

As we see, he disparages anyone who speaks against what we shall soon see, when Declan Waugh's new report www.enviro.ie based on nothing but peer reviewed studies, is released shortly showing us that artificial water fluoridation could be called a crime against humanity.

If anyone reading this article knows of someone in Wyoming with administrative power on the reservations, please get them to contact him immediately as they are being seriously overdosed with fluoride.

Once again, Declan Waugh's "paper" has not been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific literature, has not been published in any respected journal, and has been totally refuted and discredited by his own Irish Government. Obviously you have no understanding of science or healthcare, but for those who do and would like to see the Irish Government's refute of Waugh's mishmash of misinformation, it may be found:

Declan waugh is the last person to get valid scientific comment from You will find the only place that will publish his work is his own website You never see it on quality peer reviewed pages He is a bottom feeder

You point out that you are a dentist. I would point out that this does not mean you are a biologist, epidemiologist or neurologist. You have had some chemistry classes (so have I) and you know a lot about the structure of teeth and more than the average layman about biology.

In fact, you know enough about biology to honestly realize that you assertions about the safety of fluoride (and "amalgam" fillings) are unqualified and should not be made by dentists without pointing out the limitations (most) dentists have in relevant education.

You point out that you are a dentist. I would point out that this does not mean you are a biologist, epidemiologist or neurologist. You have had some chemistry classes (so have I) and you know a lot about the structure of teeth and more than the average layman about biology.

In fact, you know enough about biology to honestly realize that you assertions about the safety of fluoride (and "amalgam" fillings) are unqualified and should not be made by dentists without pointing out the limitations (most) dentists have in relevant education.

As a dentist myself, I have to say, how completely wrong you are. The safety of long term fluoride use has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sorry but this conspiracy crap, is just that, no better than the usual WTC or Ancient Aliens nonsense.

You did not read my post. I could be in favor of fluoridation -- I pointed out that dentists are not qualified to decide if fluoride is safe or not and that is what you should have replied to rather than saying how completely wrong I am about fluoride.

Are you paid to post in response to every post not supportive of fluoridation because that is what your response suggests; please address, if you will, the difference between dentistry and any of the listed disciplines.

I am a scientist (not one qualified to judge the safety of fluoridation but one of probably can reasonably judge who is qualified) which a dentist is not; I am not engaging in an ad hominem attack but you are coming close to this -- why?

Interesting that you are a "scientist" who has no dental education, probably no medical education, yet professes to "know" that which dentists are "qualified to do". Uh....yeah, you might want to back to school and extend your education past "some chemistry courses".

That's right: I know that dentists are not research biologists or epidemiologists. That is, you are typically not scientists.

I am not a chemist or a biological scientist.

So I am not saying that I am qualified to judge the safety or efficacy of fluoridation; I am not and neither are you unless you have an educational background unusual for a dentist.

So really all I am asking is why do you emphasize that you are a dentist in your comments? Do you think this does qualify you to make such judgements? It might tend to convince some people reading this that you are qualified but that is only unfortunate.

Summary: Dentists are not qualified to discuss the health effects (other than those effects that involve teeth and the mouth in general) of fluoride. On the other hand, they might be especially biased in favor of fluoride.

Please tell me what you disagree with in the above summary. Thanks in advance.

That's right: I know that dentists are not research biologists or epidemiologists. That is, you are typically not scientists.

You obviously have no clue what goes into a dental education in the US.

First class we had, 8AM, advanced biochemistry. Was a killer too. We also get pharmacology, epidemiology, pathology, histology, anatomy etc. When I was in college a "full load" was 18 hours, we calculated that our first semester of dental school was 26 hours.

You then get tested on these subjects in a board exam you need to pass before moving on to your 3rd year (when you start generally seeing patients).

Added in my specific case I did take additional epidemiology classes prior to entering dental school (I was bored) and they were very "Mickey mouse" compared to what we got in Dental school.

Additionally many high end students are also actual scientists. I myself worked in a genetics lab in college and am published. I also have an additional three years of advanced dental education for my specialty and a M.S. in oral biology. I was in school full time until I was 32 years old.

My qualifications to discuss this matter are as good as anyone on the planet. Added, unlike most researchers who are not dentists, I also see the effects of avoiding fluoride first hand in patients whos parents are confused by the conspiracy nonsense. Its not good.

So your summery in my case is completely false, and in most cases not valid. There is more to being a dentist then just drilling and filling.

So with my qualifications which I will summarize. A B.S. in biology, a D.D.S., a specialty qualification, and M.S. in oral biology, and published research, based on all the evidence at hand, I state, without a doubt that 1. Fluoride is effective in caries control, and 2. It is safe at the current recommended doses long term for human consumption.

Added if fluoride were banned we dentists would see a HUGE boost in income, I say this when it is AGAINST MY SELF INTEREST. I would only hope that fluoride were to be found harmful because I really want a nice fishing boat for deep see fishing and I just can't justify 250k on a toy. The problem is that I'm ethical.

You obviously have not been to dental school. You obviously do not have a clue as to what are the prerequisite courses for admission to dental school, much less the dental school curriculum, the training, education, or experience of dentists. In other words, you have no idea as to what dentists are qualified to do or not do.

That said, I do not "emphasize" that I am a dentist. Rather than hide behind a pseudonym, I place my entire name at the end of each of my comments for the sake of full disclosure as to whom I am, and my perspective on this issue, for all to see. Some take the fact that I am a dentist as being a plus, some a negative, some don't care one way or the other. I could not care less how anyone views it. I stand fully behind all my comments and am not afraid to put my full name, which includes the DDS, at the end of each.

If you were a "scientist" of any sort, you would understand that the peer-reviewed science stands on its own merit. It makes no difference whether a dentist relies on, and reports, this science, or whether it is done so by a biologist, epidemiologist, neurologist, or the man in the moon. The science is the science.

You would do well to stop inanely attempting to judge the educational level of those for whom you obviously have no clue, and spend that time properly educating yourself on this issue, as I have, from legitimate and proper sources. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the National Sanitary Foundation, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone willing to exert the minimum amount of effort it takes to access it.

One does not to be a "biologist, epidemiologist, or neurologist to know and understand the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Obviously your "some chemistry classes" were not sufficient enough for you to learn the difference between valid science and junk science. The public health initiative of water fluoridation prevents dental decay with no adverse effects. It's that simple. If you care to disagree then produce the valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims.

In regard to "amalgam" fillings, it appears that you are one of the gullible souls who has paid a fortune to have his replaced by far less durable material which will require replacement after replacement, after replacement.....in spite of there being no valid scientific justification for so doing. Say, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you at a good price......some land at low tide in Florida, maybe?

Slott is part of a Rapid Response Team set up by politically active fluoridationists to "debunk" any article which dares to show or suggest the downside of fluoridation. We have repeatedly asked him to provide the evidence (not opinions or endorsements) that fluoridation is safe for everyone. He fails to do so.

Fluoridation began in 1945 with the mistaken belief that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay. Sodium fluoride was injected into drinking water with absolutely no idea what it could do to any body part that wasn't a tooth. We are finding out now. For example

The NYS Dep’t of Health and many other government, health and dental groups give such warnings (See citations: http://www.FluorideDangers.Blogspot.com ) but they are little publicized. Parents also need to know that hidden fluoride in infant foods can contribute to fluorosis

The CDC reports 60% of adolescents suffer with dental fluorosis; but 51% still get cavities despite have dental sealants on their teeth. This is another reason why the US Dep’t of Health and Human Services recommends that water fluoride levels be lowered to 0.7 mg/L – which most states have ignored and still deliver the higher unsafe levels to their too-trusting water customers.

According to Dr. E. Angeles Martinez-Mier of the Indiana University School of Dentistry and a dental scientist who has worked more than 20 years on fluoride research, "the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of not using fluoride in baby formula was made because a study found that fluoride is not effective when the person has no teeth. She said she participated not only in that study but in four of the five CDC studies on fluoridation."

A CDC slogan is often used to promote fluoridation. However, the CDC wants you to know that “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe”

In fact, carefully reading CDC reports reveals fluoride doubts. CDC writes: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” and that ingested fluoride emerges from saliva to bathe teeth topically but that level is too low to prevent tooth decay

The CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”

Fluoridationists hide behind a laundry list of endorsers because they can't provide any science which proves fluoridation is safe for everyone. And, if they admit nothing is safe for everyone, they won't identify whom should avoid fluoridated tap water - preferring instead to protect fluoride's image at all costs to any American who are kept purposely misinformed.

Fluoridation began in 1945 with the mistaken belief that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay

I suppose its just coincidence the families I treat that are "anti-fluoride" have kids with so many cavities. Maybe the evil dentists are GIVING those children cavities! That would be an excellent conspiracy theory for you!

I bet you don't think they should be vaccinated either...

Too much fluoride IS a bad thing, we've always known this, it is in fact how the anti-cavity effects of fluoride were discovered, but so is too much of most things. Extrapolating and guesstimating from that doesn't work in biology because biologic reactions are not linear.

Gee, a bunch of dentists who correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted by you and other antifluoridationists.....how horrible.

Now, compare that to your "credentials" ....the "Media Relations Director" for the New York antifluoridationist faction, "Fluoride Action Network", who has no healthcare education, training, experience, or knowledge. Hmmm, wonder whom would be more credible to intelligent, objective readers....

The other half of your irrelevant claim that you have asked me for safety studies is the fact that I have repeatedly told you that demanding proof of a negative is invalid science. In order to credibly demand proof that a problem does not exist, there must first be valid evidence of the existence of one. You have provided no such evidence. Throwing out a constant barrage of unsubstantiated claims, as antifluoridationists do, then demanding proof that they are not valid has no merit whatsoever.

In regard to the rest of the half-truths and outright misinformation you have posted here...

1. What you personally deem to be a "mistaken belief" is irrelevant.

2. Due to the existing fluoride content of powdered infant formula, reconstituting it with fluoridated water risks mild to very mild dental fluorosis in the developing teeth of infants. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. It causes no "yellow, brown, and/or pitted teeth".

As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. For those parents who may be concerned with even mild to very mild dental fluorosis, in spite of the decay preventive benefit, the ADA and the CDC have suggested they use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or simply use pre-mixed formula, most, if not all, of which is made with low fluoride content water.

3. Filtered and edited "information" on an antifluoridationist blog, "fluoridedangersblogspot", has no relevance or merit. If you desire your claims to be considered then properly cite legitimate, primary sources of information which has not been filtered through antifluoridationist sites.

4. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not recommended lowering the optimal level of fluoride. The optimal level of fluoride was originally set as a range of
0.7 ppm -1.2 ppm. It was set as a range due to different levels of water consumption in different climates. Recent studies have shown that due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there is no longer a significant difference in water consumption due to climate. In recognition of this, as well as the increased availability of fluoride now as opposed to when the optimal was originally set, the CDC, in 2011, recommended the resetting of the optimal to simply the low end of the current range, 0.7 ppm. The DHHS has as yet to officially adopt this recommendation but is expected to do so in the immediate future.

The 60% of teens with fluorosis which you attribute to CDC findings is actually 41%, which comes from a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar. That "41% of all children" is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.

The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who may desire to have it.

5. The claim which you attribuute to "Dr. E. Angeles Martinez-Meir" is completely erroneous. See my previous explanation of the reasons for the CDC recommendation to lower the optimal. That fluoride is effective on pre-erupted teeth is clearly evident by your own reference to dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically, on developing teeth. As mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated to be more decay resistant, there is clearly a benefit on pre-erupted teeth, thus debunking your erroneous claim.

6. Again, references to biased, antifluoridationist websites, this time to your own, "fluorideaction", are meaningless. Those "25% with no teeth", and anyone else, will be far better served by accessing accurate information from legitimate, reliable, respected, and primary sources, rather than allowing themselves to be insidiously steered to the filtered and edited nonsense on antifluoridationist websites. The websites of the CDC, the EPA , the ADA, the National Sanitary Foundation, and the World Health Organization each has a wealth of accurate, knowledgeable information readily available to anyone.

7. Yes, it is not the task of the CDC to ensure the safety of public drinking water. This is the responsibility of the EPA, which does so very effectively.

8. In regard to the out-of-context CDC quote you posted, let's look at the entire paragraph in its complete and proper context:

"Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1--2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization."

9. There is no "hiding behind" anything in regard to the public health initiative of water fluoridation. This constant attempt to disparage the overwhelming support for fluoridation by respected science and healthcare is nothing but a "red herring" attempted by antifluoridationists to divert attention from the fact that there is not one, single, respected organization which opposes fluoridation, while the list of those who do support it is over 100, worldwide. Anyone who believes that these highly respected organizations would support any public health initiative which wasn't fully supported by peer-reviewed science....is a complete fool.

Steven Slott,
I have no invested interest one way or the other, but if you are telling me that the studies that show that fluoridation causes amyloid plaques are incorrect then be a scientist and write a criticism. This is not religion.
Mario Garrett

You are correct, this not "religion". It is science, and science is evidenced based. Your personal opinion of what "Studies show", "We are more likely to see", "but it might also", "in another study"......is evidence of nothing other than your speculation, personal opinion, and poor research on this issue. If you have studies you believe demonstrate that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated cause amyloid plaques, then properly cite them from their primary sources.

In regard to the references on which you base your personal opinions:

Lowry, et al.

"CONCLUSION
This analysis indicates that there is no evidence that fluoridation has had any influence on the rate of congenital abnormalities or stillbirths in the north east of England. Our study adds to the available evidence on fluoridation."

3. Brumback is nothing more than a review of Paul Connett's non peer-reviewed book, from an "alternative medicine" journal.

4. Strunecka's article in the dubious journal "Fluoride", of the antifluoridationist group pretentiously named "International Society for Fluoride Research", provides no valid evidence of aluminofluoride complexes as a result of water fluoridated at the optimal level. One must wonder why this study was not published in a respected scientific journal.

5. Varner is a study of the effect of aluminum uptake in rat brains. The increased brain levels of Al were attributed to the presence of significant amounts of aluminum in the rat chow. Varner simply speculates that "is possible" that NaF is able to form some amount of AlF with the aluminum in the rat chow, but offers no proof of this.

"Both the AlF and NaF groups had increased brain Al levels relative to controls. The Al level in the NaF group was double that of controls and the Al level in the AlF group was even greater. The Al detected in the controls and NaF groups is most likely due to the presence of this
element in the rat chow. Reported estimates of the Al content in Purina Rodent Laboratory Chow range from 150 ppm to 8300 ppm Al 22 L. Goldberg, Personal communication, 1994; W.J. Horvath, Personal communication.1994 . These data indicate that normal rat chow provides
the Al availability for all animals, including the controls. Flouride also commonly occurs in food and water. They are almost completely and quickly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. In the present experiment the AlF in the drinking water was prepared to form an optimally fluoroaluminum species capable of crossing the gut and vascular barriers. It is possible that the NaF-treated group was able to form some amount of a AlF also capable of becoming bioavailable."

"As found in our previous study a high mortality rate resulted from the chronic administration of 0.5 ppm of AlF to rats in their drinking water. Since, in the present study, the administration of NaF alone did not produce a similar mortality rate, this effect does not appear to be
directly related to F intake."

"While the small amount of AlF in the drinking water of rats required for neurotoxic effects is surprising, perhaps even more surprising are the neurotoxic results of NaF at the dose given in the present study 2.1 ppm . Since dietary sources of F are additive in animals perhaps for theanimals in the NaF group, the F in their chow together with their drinking water exceeded tolerable levels."

-----Chronic administration of aluminum±fluoride or sodium±fluoride to rats in
drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity

J.A. Varner et al.
Brain Research 784 1998 284±298

In regard to your opinion that "The bigger contention is whether we need to indiscriminately fluoridate our teeth by ingestion of fluoride through our water supply without being able to control the level of exposure, the varying sensitivity of the recipient, and its accumulation in the body."..... A modicum of proper research would have demonstrated to you that there is indeed control over level of fluoride exposure with fluoridated systems, in many cases better than in non-fluoridated systems, due to lack of control over fluoride content of well-water and proper dispensing and constant, professional monitoring of fluoride content in fluoridated systems.

Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the "dose" of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let's go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg "dose" of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or "dose", of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or "dose" from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.

The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily "dose" of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.

The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that "dose" is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

Your figure of 25% of adults over 60 who "no longer have their natural teeth" means that 75% still do have them. Root caries is a major problem with older adults. Should this 75% be deprived of the decay preventive benefit of fluoridation because 25% "no longer have their natural teeth"?

Please provide your valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of water fluoridated at the optimal level, on bone and the pineal gland.

Hip fractures:

"Estimated individual drinking water fluoride exposure was stratified into 4 categories: very low,

Dr. Slott, thank you for taking the time to post this. I'm the anonymous dentist above (Class of 98, Orthodontics 2001). I really applaud you for your attempt to properly educate on this subject and the weakness of the "studies" but after years of being an internet warrior I just can't bring myself to take the time for people who already made up their mind.

Hopefully though, if someone is unfortunate enough to find this blogpost your efforts will give the the information they need.

Anonymous, I've got you by a couple of decades, having graduated UNC SOD in 1981. The objections of antifluoridationists are not grounded in science, they are grounded in personal ideology. Thus no matter how much valid science is presented to them, they will reject it as long as it does not agree with their personal ideology, which it never will. Thus, I don't post comments with any delusions of changing their minds, I simply post to correct the mounds of misinformation they post all over the internet, such that any intelligent readers who may happen to read these comments will not mistake the antifluoridationist nonsense as having any semblance of accuracy or validity.

I am honestly disappointed in Psychology Today for publishing this biased piece of poorly researched junk written by an obvious antifluoridationist. These types of "articles" are to be expected in "NaturalNews" and other such activist "publications", but I have always felt "Psychology Today" to have had much higher standards than this.

I felt that way on a few "articles" before I realized that they were just blog posts, and just about anyone who wrote ANY book or holds some sort of faculty position at a university in a soft science, could get one. One recently talked about the power of the paranormal and medicine, so basically this one is better than some of them.

Yeah, I know. I run into these blogs constantly. It is just very irritating that they give these people a forum from which to spew their unsubstantiated junk, under the guise of "science".

I'm sure you've seen your share of the devastating effects of untreated dental decay. I've spent the overwhelming majority of my 32 year career providing for the underserved in my private practice and in free programs I initiated and operated in my state and 6 others. Those such as Mario, here, have no concept of the extreme pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection with which tens of millions of our citizens deal every day of their lives, which these activist zealots so callously dismiss while whining about infringements on their "rights", presenting pseudoscience and unsubstantiated nonsense to justify their self-absorbed personal ideology. When their junk is exposed for what it is, they simply move on to another site and spew the same stuff, verbatim.

i notice that this "article" has now appeared on another site. Undoubtedly, Mario, nyscof, and other antifluoridationists will pompously defend it there knowing full well that every point in the "article" has been completely refuted here. It is truly disgusting.

Brumback, R. A. (2012). Book Review: The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There. Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine, 17(2), 140-141.

Again, I am just interested in the science. I have no invested interest in conspiracy theories nor making money (I am not selling.)
We know and agree that too much fluoride is bad, and perhaps topical applications are beneficial. Can we agree that fluoride causes amyloid plaques in the brain? And if not is there evidence against these studies that show this correlation?
Mario Garrett

Too much of anything is bad. There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. If you are going to condemn water fluoridation due to properties of fluoride at improper levels then you condemn every other substance we ingest.

Provide cites to the studies you believe demonstrate amyloid plaque formation caused by water fluoridated at the optimal level.

On June 26, 2014, Peel Regional Council in Ontario, Canada received a legal brief presented by Nader Hasan of Ruby, Shiller, Chan and Hasan, Barristers, in which, briefly he told them that AWF was illegal, harming humans, and against the rights of the individual. A request was made that Peel Regional re-open the fluoridation issue in order that experts on both sides present their cases. Nader said that he had laid all his cards on the table with the hope that a court case could be avoided. The council deferred the matter to September 11, 2014 in order that their legal team could review the brief. This well researched, valuable and important brief will be publicly available in the near future.

Nader Hasan was representing Concerned Residents of Peel Region to End Fluoridation

Kallie, you are woefully behind. This "legal action" is old news that has already been copy/pasted by all the usual antifluoridationist disseminators of misinformation.

This "legal action" simply amounts to yet one more uninformed antifluoridationist lawyer who was allowed to present his opinions at a city council meeting. His lame threats amount to nothing but the same, lame threats of "legal action" which have been rejected by the courts each and every time they have been attempted by antifluoridationists.

Obviously there is nothing "illegal" about the public health initiative of water fluoridation or it wouldn't be allowed. It's as simple as that.

Now if their arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own ,without legal help. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not

Steven Slott DDS
In the ottoman period there had Janissaries--who were slaves of Christian and Jewish origin from their enemies—who formed the elite of the infantry of their army. They were feared. They fought mercilessly. Even as slaves they held the most influential positions in the administration and later in their retirement they received high civil positions. In war they were the first ones to attack. They were all doped on hallucinogens wearing bright blue silk finery, enormous white turbines and brandishing the finest equipment at the time…gem encrusted swords. They charged without any conscious notion of death or peril.

You, Steven D. Slott, DDS, are a Janissary. Your input into the debate is single minded--to destroy the creditability of the opposing view. This is not science.

Science is a method, not knowledge. Scientific knowledge is always inaccurate to the n’th degree of detail. It is always evolving. Static knowledge is religion not science. The scientific method is that you look at anomalies and from these you try—as a scientist—to explain your observations through a theory. When you reject anomalies outright you do not have science but you have (Evangelical/Muslim/Catholic/Jewish/Corporate) preaching.

Love, yoga, cuddles, letters from your children and grand children, hugs, compassion, peace, tolerance, intimacy, discussion, reading, education, resting, meditation, reading (because I like reading), praying, fighting the good fight. These are some of the “things” that are not toxic at any amount. The more the better.

Be well. I will ignore you from now on.

Go along in your path. Aim to publish a peer-reviewed paper on this topic.
Peace.

You have clearly made my point. Having abandoned your transparent facade of being "just interested in the science", reverted to nonsense about the "ottoman period", "yoga"....etc. and rejected the peer-reviewed science I have presented to you, you have confirmed that you, like the vast majority of antifluoridationists, object to fluoridation based on your own personal ideology, not on the basis of science.

Your personal opinion as to what you deem "science" to be is irrelevant to the issue of water fluoridation. Instead of meeting my challenge to you to provide valid peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims, you choose to childishly sulk and proclaim that you will "ignore". Hardly the behavior expected of any true scientist, but very characteristic of uninformed antifluoridationists when backed into a corner and called on their unsubstantiated nonsense.

I will assume that you have, as fully expected, no valid evidence to support your claims. Hopefully Psychology Today will learn from this mistake, and raise their standards for publication.

Demanding proof a negative is not valid science. In order to credibly demand proof that a problem does not exist, there first must be valid evidence that one does exist. Fluoride has existed in water since the beginning of time. The public health initiative of water fluoridation has been in existence for the past 69 years. There has never been any proven adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level utilized in water. Never. Attempting to provide proof of safety of fluoridation against the constant barrage of unsubstantiated claims put forth by antifluoridationists would be a never ending exercise in futility. Demanding such is unreasonable, and invalid science.

Given that, however, if you just want evidence countering the usual array of nonsense emanating from Connett, nyscof and all the little antifluoridationist websites and "blogs":

IQ

"Conclusions. These ﬁndings do not support the assertion that ﬂuoride in the
context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high ﬂuoride
exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by
confounding, particularly by urban or rural status."

"These ecologic trend data suggest that the fluoridation of public water supplies is not associated with an immediate increase in rates of hip fracture."

-----Hip fracture incidence before and after the fluoridation of the public water supply, Rochester, Minnesota.
S J Jacobsen, W M O'Fallon, and L J Melton, 3rd

Am J Public Health. 1993 May; 83(5): 743–745.
PMCID: PMC1694705

Kidney

"Because the kidneys are constantly exposed to various fluoride concentrations, any health effects caused by fluoride would likely manifest themselves in kidney cells. However, several large community-based studies of people with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride
concentrations up to 8 ppm have failed to show an increase in kidney disease."

"People exposed to optimally fluoridated water will consume 1.5mg of fluoride per day. Available studies found no difference in kidney function between people drinking optimally fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. There is discrepant information in studies relating to the potential negative effects of consuming water with greater than 2.0ppm of fluoride."

"Available literature indicated that impaired kidney function results in changes in fluoride retention and distribution in the body. People with kidney impairment showed a decreased urine fluoride and increased serum and bone fluoride correlated with degree of impairment; however, there was no consistent evidence that the retention of fluoride in people with stage four or stage five CKD, consuming optimally fluoridated water, resulted in negative health consequences."

There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.

A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

------International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

• The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

-------Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Available at http//www. nhmrc.gov.au/advice/pdfcover/fluocov. htm, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

------Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

-------Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

------European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

As far as mercury in amalgams, there is no valid scientific evidence of any problems associated with this. If you are one of the gullible ones who has spent a fortune replacing amalgam fillings with less durable material which will require more frequent, expensive replacement......I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell you at a good price....or maybe you would like some land in Florida at low tide? Contact with a Nigerian fellow epwho would like to give you a large sum of money?

Fluoridation as a policy and practice will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. Too many people have now discovered it is a scam and what the true history is behind it. It is cigarette science and promotion meant to create a profit by the phosphate fertilizer industry for what would otherwise be a pollution by product that cannot be easily or cheaply stored or disposed of.

There are a small group of people (or groups) whose job seems to be finding any article about fluoridation on the web. Upon doing so, they apply derision, name calling, misinformation and every trick they can pull out of the bag to inundate the comment section of the article with as much pro-fluoridation rebuttal as possible. I need not say who in the comment section has done the most to write rebuttals, and in the very end, has literally called everyone who challenges his infallible wisdom a "fool." FOOL is a word that must be carefully used and understood. In most cases, it is the one using the word "fool" that fits its description more than any other.

We suspect the rabid response team are funded by the likes of PEW Trusts and the American Dental Association - two organizations who have spent a fortune to maintain a policy that is unscientific, illegal and unethical in every sense. It is in their best interest to promote fluoridation policy in order to avoid the resultant liabilities and loss of credibility from the widespread knowledge of the long term adverse health effects of ingesting the toxin.

Opponents of fluoridation have done their own research, are not paid or supported by ancillary organizations for their opinion, and realize that endorsements and name calling are about as far from real science as you can get. It takes a lot of courage to go against a widely held belief system. And, that is what fluoridation has become - a culture. It's hard for those in a culture to admit their folly.

The other method the proponents of fluoridation use is to make sure the reader understands that whatever opinion the proponents may proffer is the absolute only opinion that really counts. Don't believe that for a moment.

Don't take anyone's word for it. Go out and do your own research. Get the debate from both sides - not just "accepted," "official," or authoritative sources. Don't be fooled into thinking that official endorsements given out by organizations or high ranking individuals are the final word on any policy just because they happen to be government or academically associated. History is rife with people and whole governments and populations who have been monumentally wrong about a lot of things. And, history is rife with true believers and crusaders who took that dogma to heart and destroyed a lot of lives with it.

Thank you J. Cook for a well-written comment. Doing one's own research is highly recommended. That is how I switched as an RN espousing artificial water fluoridation to working for over ten years to end the disrespect of individual rights by mass medicating without informed consent, dose control or regulation in the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid or derivative,to drinking water. Being retired, afforded me the time to search for the legally required toxicology studies and fortunately/unfortunately have not, after hours of phone calls, letters, emails,internet searches, and requests to my medical officer of health, been able to locate them.

As a reasonably caring human being I find it disheartening and enraging to know that our elected officials, doctors, dentists and public officials are telling us it is safe when there are no safety studies. If only they would do their due diligence and not accept myth and dogma, it would be soon ended.

Hopefully, a legal brief presented to Peel Regional Council on Ontario, Canada claiming artificial water fluoridation is illegal, harmful and unsafe will lead to the court case to prove once and for all, artificial water fluoridation is harming humans, animals and our environment while acting as a method of toxic waste disposal for the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries.

You provide a perfect example of exactly what I just posted in response to J Cook. In spite of the fact that it has been repeatedly explained to you that hydrofluorosilic acid does not exist at the tap in fluoridated water and is not ingested, therefore having no requirement or need for "toxicological studies", you still post this same nonsense about "illegalities" of HFA. One of two things....either you have dementia which causes you to forget what has been repeatedly made clear to you or you are void of honesty and integrity, simply posting nonsense you know to be false and misleading. Take your pick.

As far as Peel, think about it for a minute. If the City Council were ever to find itself in court over fluoridation, which position do you think that they would rather be in:

1. Defending themselves against an uninformed antifluoridationist lawyer who has filed frivolous charges which have no foundation in fact, and have been repeatedly rejected by courts each and very time they have been attempted in court, with the council having on its side the overwhelming consensus opinion and support of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare

Or

2. Defending themselves against charges that it ceased a public health initiative which has been clearly demonstrated effective by peer-reviewed science, has had no proven adverse effects, ever, and which is fully supported and recommended by the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare, with the council having on its side an uninformed antifluoridationist lawyer and factions of activist zealots who have no healthcare credentials whatsoever?

Why would I have "any kind of lab work proving anyone is somehow deficient in fluoride ions"? Neither I, nor any other intelligent person, of whom I'm aware, with even a modicum of understanding of the public health initiative of water fluoridation, has ever claimed its purpose to be to correct any sort of "deficiency" in fluoride ions. This idea is just one more more in a long list of "red herrings" concocted by antifluoridationists who seek to divert attention from the fact that they have no valid evidence to support their position.

Water fluoridation is simply the increasing of the fluoride level of water systems up to the optimal level such that the fluoride they have ingested in water all of their lives, will provide them maximum benefit. For those systems that already have an existing level at or above the optimal level, fluoridation is not needed and is not done. For those systems that are determined to have existing fluoride content significantly higher than the optimal, the recommendation is frequently made for them to lower that level through filtration.

In many cases, fluoridated systems provide far better control over fluoride ingestion than have those systems which do not fluoridate.

Do you have any kind of lab work proving anyone is somehow deficient fluoride ions? Science? The scientific method?

If you had even the least bit of a scientific education, or even understanding of the scientific method, you would no have asked this question. Being you do not, its best you not form strong opinions on anything related to this until you understand why this question makes no sense.

You know, it's always comical to see antifluoridationists proclaim how they have " researched" the issue but then, like you here, are unable to provide any valid evidence, whatsoever, to support their ridiculous claims. If you have done your "research" prove it. Provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims here.

First, when fluoridation is increasing in the United States, 73.4% in 2011 to 74.6% in 2012... Please provide the evidence on which you base your claim that fluoridation is "going the way of the dinosaur".

Second, please provide the evidence on which you base your absurd claim that fluoridation is a "scam".

Third, please provide the evidence on which you base your absurd claim that fluoridation is a "profit" conspiracy by the "phosphate fertilizer industry".

Fourth, please provide the evidence upon which you base your ridiculous claim that fluoridation is "unscientific, illegal, and unethical in every sense"

Provide evidence for these claims and we'll address the others you have made. Your failure to provide valid evidence to support your claims will be taken as your admission that you have not one clue as to what you are talking about.

As to your other comical claim, that fluoridation advocates are "paid" while opponents are not "paid or supported by ancillary organizations for their opinion". First, neither I, nor any other fluoridation advocate of whom I'm aware, receive any compensation whatsoever for correcting the mounds upon mounds of misinformation constantly disseminated by antifluoridationists. Now compare this to whom actually DOES profit from keeping this issue alive.....

1. Paul Connett, the Director of the antifluoridationist group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), long time antifluoridationist zealot- Paul's non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy. Paul claims that he donates all royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit group, FAN. Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul's fluoride chasing trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and anywhere else he chooses to visit, this "donation" would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of $1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.

2. William Hirzy- the long time antifluoridationist, and close Connett affiliate, Hirzy, is the paid lobbyist for Connett's group, FAN.

3. Attorney James Deal- close Connett affiliate, and donor to FAN, Deal, maintains a website devoted soley to attempts at stirring up class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably profit in the delusionary dream that he would ever succeed.

4. Alex Jones- Connett affiliate, and syndicated, controversial radio host, Jones, of "Infowars" infamy, is now pushing, for $39.95 a solution called "FluorideShield"

According to Jones' website:
"Introducing Fluoride Shield™, an Infowars Life exclusive blend of key herbs and ingredients specifically infused within the formula to help support the elimination of toxic forms of fluoride and other dangerous compounds like mercury, chlorine, and bromine from within the body."

5. Whatever may be paid to Connett's son, Michael, for his "services" to FAN as well as to any other Connett family members and/or friends.

As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit organization, the FAN financials lack the transparency as would normally be expected of any such non-profit organization dependent on public donations, and exempt from federal income taxes.

Given all of the above, along with the fact that antifluoridationists in general have no understanding of science, have no integrity, have no compunction about posting one patently false claim after another, then going to another site and doing the same, time after time, after time, knowing full well that their claims are false and misleading.....and you have the unmitigated gall to whine about "poor fluoridation opponents" who are treated as "fools"??? If you don't want to be treated as a fool, then stop acting like one.

As you seem to think you have the right to tell individuals that they must be mass medicated without informed consent, dose control or regulation, with a toxic waste product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, which you say is perfectly safe, I will wait for your remarks when the Peel Regional law suit is won in court. It is against my individual rights granted by the Charter of Rights in Canada to be medicated without my consent. I do not give consent to hydrofluorosilicic acid to be added to my drinking water.

I am very curious as to what need of yours is met with your insistence that everyone ingest the medication you say is safe and effective whether they want to or not.

I feel afraid when my need to know that I have choice as to what medicine is put into my body, is taken away which is what occurs in artificial water fluoridation.

I don't tell anyone to do anything, in regard to fluoridation. I simply correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted by those such as you who are woefully ignorant about science and healthcare, and who have no compunction about constantly posting blatantly false "information".

As there is no case in regard to legality and liability nonsense about water fluoridation it is highly doubtful that anyone other than antifluoridationists have any interest in it, whatsoever. Unless the Peel council is collectively brain dead, this is a foregone conclusion.